NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 14

- 3261

_____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. DOUGLAS E. OLIVER, a/k/a Bird Douglas E. Oliver, Appellant

_____________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey District Court No. 1

- 07

- cr
- 00443

- 001 District Judge: The Honorable Renee M. Bumb Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

March 16, 2015
Before: SMITH, JORDAN , and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges

(Filed: March 24, 2015 )

_____________________ OPINION 

_____________ ________

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2

SMITH, Circuit Judge. Douglas Oliver pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey sentenced Oliver to 46 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by a three year term of supervised release. After commencing his term of supervised
release on October 22, 2012, Oliver had difficulty complying with the conditions
of the program. T he District Court twice modif ied the terms of Oliver’s supervised
release. In May of 2014 , a probation officer asked the District Court to issue a
warrant for Oliver’s arrest. The petition seeking the warrant set out three
violation s
. O liver plead ed guilty to violation number one , and the District Court
found that his guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. After considering the arguments of the parties and the sentencing factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),
the District Court sentenced Oliver to an eight month term of imprisonme nt for the supervised release violation and a new twenty

- eight month term of supervised
release. Th ereafter, Oliver filed a pro se Notice of App ea l

. 1 Oliver’s counsel filed a brief asserting that she did not have any non

frivolous issues to present fo r appellate review and requested permission to

1 The District Court exercised jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (3). We have appellate jurisdiction unde r 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)

.3

withdraw as counsel pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 2 We agree with counsel’s assessment of Oliver’s appeal. 3 The District Court’s colloquy at the revocation proceeding was thoroug h , and the record supports the District Court’s finding that Oliver’s guilty plea to violation number one was knowing and voluntary. In light of the guilty plea and given Oliver’s repeated
failure to comply with the terms of his supervised release , there is sufficient evidence to support the District Court’s revocation of Oliver’s term of supervised
release

. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (providing that supervised release may be revoked upon finding a violation “ by a preponderance of the evidence”).
With regard to the sentence imposed, we conclude there is no basis for disturbing it. O ur review of the transcript of the revocation proceeding
demonstrates that t he District Court correctly computed the advisory guideline
range , accurately recited the applica ble statutory p enalties , thoughtfully considered the sentencing factors in § 3553(a) , and explained its reasons for imposing a sentence that included both a term of imprisonment and a new term of supervised

2 Counsel served Oliver with a copy of the Anders brief and her motion to withdraw as counsel

. C onsistent with Third Circuit L.A.R. 109.2(a) , the Clerk’s Office advised Oliver of his right to file a pro se bri ef within thirty days of the notice. Oliver f

a ile d to file a pro se brief with the Clerk

. 3 We review the District Court’s decision to revoke supervised release for abuse of discretion, but we apply clear error review to factual findings and plenary revi ew to legal issues. United States v. Maloney , 513 F.3d 350, 354 (3d Cir. 2008).4

release. 4 Because the sentence is neither proced urally nor substantively unreasonable, we will not disturb it. United States v. Tomko , 562 F.3d 5 58, 56 7

- 6 8 (3d Cir. 2009 )

. O ur own independent review of the record fails to reveal any non

- frivolous issue to consider. For that reason, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment and
gran t counsel ’ s motion to withdraw. We certify that the issues presented in th is appeal lack legal merit and do not require the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. 3d Cir. LAR 109.2(b).

4 See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h) ( authoriz ing , upon revocation of supervised release, the imposition of a new term of supervised release following a term of imprisonment )

.